Repaired Auto's Value is Diminished Yet an Insurer has no Obligation to Insure Against that Risk of Loss
Post 5082
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gkhQsW74 and at https://lnkd.in/g9C29M8s, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Yolanda Fincher appealed the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm" ).
Yolanda Fincher appealed the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm" ). Fincher sued State Farm for the diminished value of her vehicle following a car accident that damaged the car.
In Yolanda Fincher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2025-Ohio-1752, No. C-240550, Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton (May 16, 2025) resolved her claim.
FACTUAL HISTORY
Fincher's complaint alleged that, on August 4, 2021, she was in a car accident with an uninsured motorist that injured her and damaged her car. She asserted that she retained an insurance contract with State Farm and that the company violated the contract by failing to cover the diminished value of her car.
She sought $14,500 in damages, representing the diminished value to her vehicle's Kelly Blue Book value plus interest.
After State Farm answered the complaint, the matter was referred to a magistrate for disposition. The magistrate scheduled a January 5, 2024 trial date. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing in part that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Fincher's policy did not cover diminished value. State Farm supported its summary judgment motion with a certified copy of Fincher's policy, which its records custodian described as State's Farm ordinary business record. Fincher did not respond to State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
After the magistrate denied State Farm's summary judgment motion. State Farm objected to the magistrate's decision denying its motion for summary judgment. In its objection, State Farm argued that magistrate erred because Fincher had failed to rebut the summary judgment motion with disputed facts and because Fincher's policy excluded diminished value coverage.
Fincher responded but she cited no facts in evidence to support these assertions. In its response, State Farm pointed to the lack of evidence supporting Fincher's claims.
The trial court ruled on State Farm's objections and sustained State Farm's objection to the magistrate's decision and granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. The trial court also granted State Farm's motion to strike and Fincher appealed.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
First, Fincher contended that the trial court acted unfairly in failing to grant her a continuance based on her legitimate medical needs and asserted that she is entitled to recover for the diminished value of her vehicle because she never received a copy of her policy from State Farm.
Summary judgment is proper under Civ.R. 56(C) where:
(1) no genuine issue of material fact remains,
(2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and
(3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion even when construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.
The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment. State Farm, as the moving party met its initial burden by informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the record that demonstrate that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.
Then non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings. Instead, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the non-moving party fails to respond or to support its response with appropriate summary judgment evidence, the trial court may grant summary judgment.
The Finding
State Farm met its initial burden by presenting a certified copy of Fincher's insurance policy, which excluded coverage for diminished value. Once State Farm presented this evidence, the burden shifted to Fincher to provide evidence showing that there remained a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fincher failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment and failed to sustain her burden as the non-moving party. The trial court's summary judgment decision was, accordingly correct.
The entire purpose of the summary judgment proceeding is to ascertain whether there were any issues to be tried in the case. Once the trial court determined there were not, it properly vacated the trial date.
Because Fincher's insurance contract with State Farm does not include diminished value coverage the trial court did not err in awarding summary judgment to State Farm.
Accordingly the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
At one time making an insurer pay for the diminished value of an insured car after it was repaired was exceedingly popular in courts across the country. Insurers like State Farm, who were made to pay for damages that were not expected or insured against, learned their lesson and put exclusions in the policy. Fincher's policy with State Farm contained that exclusion so she properly got nothing from her suit.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...